PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES 277
Then, he says that the term ‘Ruler of an Indian Sate’ has never been used in sections 83 onwards. I quite agree that a variety of designations have been used. The Indian Rulers have been called Princes, Rulers, Chiefs and so on. But, what I want to submit is this. When the Constitution by several articles has given them a particular description, namely. ‘Rulers of Indian States’, is it permissible for the draftsmen to use a language other than the one that is used in the Constitution? The Justification for using the words “Rulers of Former Indian States” is simply that that is the language that is used in the Constitution. We do not want to have any departure from the language used in the Constitution so as to leave it open to anybody like my hon. friend Mr. Naziruddin Ahmed to come up and say, “well, this provision does not apply to the people to whom it is intended to apply.”
Mr. Speaker : The question is :
In clause 12 in the proviso to the proposed new section 84 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for “Ruler” substitute “Head”,
The motion was negatived.
Similar 3 other motions were negatived
Dr. R. U. Singh : …………. So far as the immunity of the Rulers of the Indian States is concerned, we do not have any such assurance from the Law Minister, in regard to things done even in their personal capacity. We are concerned with that aspect of the question. It has not been said that a certain amount of notice would be sufficient or some such thing. The immunity now sought to be conferred on them is much greater than the immunity conferred on the Head of the Indian Republic, as also the Heads of the various States of the Union. And if Government would indicate their mind and their policy in this regard, as to the duration of the immunity and the extent of that immunity—I dare say it ought not to be very wide—it would be extremely nice indeed..
P. D., Vol. 8, Part VIII, 9th February 1951, pp. 2664-65.